Dataset Information

A comparative assessment and analysis of 20 representative sequence alignment methods for protein structure prediction.

ABSTRACT: Protein sequence alignment is essential for template-based protein structure prediction and function annotation. We collect 20 sequence alignment algorithms, 10 published and 10 newly developed, which cover all representative sequence- and profile-based alignment approaches. These algorithms are benchmarked on 538 non-redundant proteins for protein fold-recognition on a uniform template library. Results demonstrate dominant advantage of profile-profile based methods, which generate models with average TM-score 26.5% higher than sequence-profile methods and 49.8% higher than sequence-sequence alignment methods. There is no obvious difference in results between methods with profiles generated from PSI-BLAST PSSM matrix and hidden Markov models. Accuracy of profile-profile alignments can be further improved by 9.6% or 21.4% when predicted or native structure features are incorporated. Nevertheless, TM-scores from profile-profile methods including experimental structural features are still 37.1% lower than that from TM-align, demonstrating that the fold-recognition problem cannot be solved solely by improving accuracy of structure feature predictions.

SUBMITTER: Yan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3965362 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparative assessment and analysis of 20 representative sequence alignment methods for protein structure prediction.

Yan Renxiang R Xu Dong D Yang Jianyi J Walker Sara S Zhang Yang Y

Scientific reports 20130101

Protein sequence alignment is essential for template-based protein structure prediction and function annotation. We collect 20 sequence alignment algorithms, 10 published and 10 newly developed, which cover all representative sequence- and profile-based alignment approaches. These algorithms are benchmarked on 538 non-redundant proteins for protein fold-recognition on a uniform template library. Results demonstrate dominant advantage of profile-profile based methods, which generate models with a ...[more]

PMID: 24018415

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate sequence alignments are essential for homology searches and for building three-dimensional structural models of proteins. Since structure is better conserved than sequence, structure alignments have been used to guide sequence alignments and are commonly used as the gold standard for sequence alignment evaluation. Nonetheless, as far as we know, there is no report of a systematic evaluation of pairwise structure alignment programs in terms of the sequence alignment accuracy.ResultsIn this study, we evaluate CE, DaliLite, FAST, LOCK2, MATRAS, SHEBA and VAST in terms of the accuracy of the sequence alignments they produce, using sequence alignments from NCBI's human-curated Conserved Domain Database (CDD) as the standard of truth. We find that 4 to 9% of the residues on average are either not aligned or aligned with more than 8 residues of shift error and that an additional 6 to 14% of residues on average are misaligned by 1-8 residues, depending on the program and the data set used. The fraction of correctly aligned residues generally decreases as the sequence similarity decreases or as the RMSD between the C alpha positions of the two structures increases. It varies significantly across CDD superfamilies whether shift error is allowed or not. Also, alignments with different shift errors occur between proteins within the same CDD superfamily, leading to inconsistent alignments between superfamily members. In general, residue pairs that are more than 3.0 A apart in the reference alignment are heavily (>or= 25% on average) misaligned in the test alignments. In addition, each method shows a different pattern of relative weaknesses for different SCOP classes. CE gives relatively poor results for beta-sheet-containing structures (all-beta, alpha/beta, and alpha+beta classes), DaliLite for "others" class where all but the major four classes are combined, and LOCK2 and VAST for all-beta and "others" classes.ConclusionWhen the sequence similarity is low, structure-based methods produce better sequence alignments than by using sequence similarities alone. However, current structure-based methods still mis-align 11-19% of the conserved core residues when compared to the human-curated CDD alignments. The alignment quality of each program depends on the protein structural type and similarity, with DaliLite showing the most agreement with CDD on average.

Dataset Information

A comparative assessment and analysis of 20 representative sequence alignment methods for protein structure prediction.

Publications

A comparative assessment and analysis of 20 representative sequence alignment methods for protein structure prediction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure